way2muchcoffee

In addition we could debate how much protesting would fall under freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. I'd say that the original rally at Phan Fa bridge would very much fall under that, as the level of disruption caused was arguably reasonable. We all know what happened: A violent crackdown and loss of life followed, prompting a relocation to the Ratchaprasong area, where a continued violent crackdown proved harder, but where levels of disruption were far greater. Courts will likely have their say on those topics, as they will on the Airport occupation.

That's not true at all. The reds were encamped at Ratchaprasong well before the crackdown at Phan Fa. The authorities didn't want to take the risk of dispersing the violent protesters at Ratchaprasong, but containing two sites was logistically very difficult. So they tried dispersal at what was believed to be an 'easier' site. We all know what followed. The army moved in for what should have been a simple dispersal operation. Instead the army was ambushed by grenades, had their leaders assassinated, and reacted when fired on with live bullets and grenades. Loss of life was inevitable, due to the extremist faction of the red shirts.

Well. Certainly no red shirt supporter could possibly complain if the PAD comes out to protest. They'll just be continuing on in the peaceful actions of the red shirts, though perhaps ramped up a bit. And when they bring in their military-trained extremists to lob a few grenades there shall be no double standards involved whatsoever. After all, the reds did it....

This is all precisely what people have been warning about what would happen if the Democrats give in to violence and terrorism.

I don't have the answers. I wish I did. I am not a PAD supporter. I am not a red shirt supporter. I have been supporting the Democrats only if headed by Abhisit, but I think he personally has been burned by recent events. I am beginning to wonder if there is anyone left to support.

Well mandate ia woolly expression and as far as I'm concerned it comes from the way the electorate behaved in the last general election - to state categorically as you do it comes from MPs is just not how democracies work

i'd love to know - though it's not for this thread how people think that the UK and some other democracies get their PMs - some of the theories here are downright hilarious

please if you're going to post - check out your history, constitution etc - but better still - if you have a child over 10 year old ask them - they'll have more of an idea than most on this thread.

It isn't so difficult to understand. Read slowly if you must.

- The voters do not select the PM. This is a fact. It is fact common to many parliamentary systems.

- The MPs are selected by the electorate. Then the MPs select the PM in a parliamentary vote.

- The only mandate a PM has is by virtue of the MPs.

- Those same MPs can remove that mandate by having a no confidence vote.

- If the majority of the MPs vote to remove the PM parliament will be dissolved.

- If the majority of the MPs vote in confidence of the PM then he stays with his mandate preserved and renewed.

Some MPs from PTP tried this and failed. Why did they fail? Because Abhisit has a parliamentary mandate.

The issue is not the legality - it is his non existent mandate.

Using UK - Tony Blair had been "removed or whatever, it would have been acceptable for another member of his party to take over.

however if the Tories had made an impromptu alliance with the Lib Dems - resulting in a Tory PM - it would have raised a lot of problems - as it has in Thailand.

THis is further complicated in Thailand by the apparent ease with which they can "dissolve" - legally - political parties.

the normal procedure in this hypothetical situation UK if the Labour Party could not have formed a govt., would be to go back to the poles.

I disagree. The mandate comes from the MPs - not the voters directly. Therefore Abhisit is legal, legitimate, and has a mandate.

If the majority of Thai people believe that a coalition realignment resulting in a new MP from another party (without a no confidence vote) is not appropriate then there should be laws prohibiting it.

Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of the MPs. Those MPs represent over 50% of the electorate. So therefore Abhisit has a mandate and the legal right and duty to be PM.

I also don't know why you bring up UK, particularly with respect to 'normal'. Is Thailand the UK? Are there things that are normal in UK that are not here, or vice versa?

It seems to me that Abhisit has the Red Shirts over a barrel. The international community including nearly every western nation, most Asian nations, NGOs, and the world press has been clamoring for negotiation and a peaceful settlement to this crisis. These calls have been echoed domestically by the business community and many other groups throughout Thailand.

Abhisit has quite publicly offered a compromise that the world will see as reasonable and fair. If the redshirts reject this last attempt at peace they will face world condemnation.

a reasonable person would expect to see the proposals in writing, go through them, develop questions and rebuttals, and then go through back-channels to express their concerns. Most negotiations are not done under the spectre of the tv camera.

I think you missed the part about there will be no more negotiating with red shirts ... they lost that option after showing their true color.

I will suggest that you show a somewhat limited knowledge of the process of negotiation. Public posturing is just that: posturing. It's part of negotiating. Do you think that Mr Abhisit went on the air to tell the public his proposal without first notifying the red shirt leaders through intermediaries? In that way, insanity lies. And the PM is far from being insane. He's showed himself to be a skilled negotiator - and a patient one - resulting in a small number of deaths (though it can be argued that one is one too many). The other option was to crush the rebellion, at the cost of many thousands of lives. Negotiations saved many, many lives. That's what defines a successful negotiation in this kind of situation.

Cut through the rhetoric, and look behind the glass tube into what has taken place outside the view of the public.

Precisely.

Sorry for Abhisit if this ends his career (for now), but this is literally about saving Thailand and much bigger than any man, and he may just be the man who does it. He is still young as well ...

It will depend on how this plays out. If all goes as planned he could, possibly, head the Democrat party in November. Alternately, another could step in. This isn't at all clear at the moment. There are too many variables.

I agree, and your point is well taken. Perhaps they have learned from the great mistake that Dr Weng made when he out of hand, rejected an offer at the negotiation table. There was not only no democracy in that, there was not even consultation with the other red shirt leaders.

But a reasonable person would expect to see the proposals in writing, go through them, develop questions and rebuttals, and then go through back-channels to express their concerns. Most negotiations are not done under the spectre of the tv camera. All of this takes time, and no doubt the government, by NOT setting a required date of response, is giving the red shirts time to discuss and either agree or disagree. I feel Mr Abhisit did not do himself a service by not giving a drop-dead date (affirm or the offer drops dead at a certain date). A reasonable date might have been one or two weeks hence.

The carrot and the stick: the carrot is compromise, reconciliation, and candid addressing of the valid points that the red shirts brought up.

The stick is the IF - if they don't go along, meaning either continue negotiation or accept, then the big stick will come out.

I think Mr Abhisit has done a fine job of weathering the storms of criticism due to his **perceived** inaction. It will be interesting, again, to see how this all plays out.

The drop-dead date was announced earlier today. You have until Thursday or possibly Friday of this week, after the Coronation Day celebrations. We will disperse you at the end of the week.

Some compromise! Take it or else. Abhisit doesn't have a good trak record for keeping promises or for that matter tell the truth.

Quite a cmpromising technique he has. A lesson in How NOT TO win friends and influence enemies.

He has no choice. The red shirts are harboring terrorists. They have taken central Bangkok. They have forced the near closure of Chulalongkorn Hospital. The red shirts or their allies bombed the BTS. Tourism has been destroyed. School is about to begin. He cannot hold back the hard line royalists much longer. There is no more time he can give them.

This has been such a God dam_n waste of time... now why in the world couldn't Abhisit have said "six months" six weeks ago??!!! What has changed that he can cut the deal now, but could not cut the deal before??????

I am stunned by the IDIOCY of this entire episode.

there was no chance the reds would have agreed on 6 months then ,because they felt stronger . But I don't know

whether they'll accept. Remember Taksin's frozen zillion bahts ? it's been said for weeks this was mostly about this money, and there isn't a word about it in Abisit's speech of course.

The frozen assets are gone. They have been transferred to government accounts. There is no way for Thaksin to get these assets back.

I agree, and your point is well taken. Perhaps they have learned from the great mistake that Dr Weng made when he out of hand, rejected an offer at the negotiation table. There was not only no democracy in that, there was not even consultation with the other red shirt leaders.

But a reasonable person would expect to see the proposals in writing, go through them, develop questions and rebuttals, and then go through back-channels to express their concerns. Most negotiations are not done under the spectre of the tv camera. All of this takes time, and no doubt the government, by NOT setting a required date of response, is giving the red shirts time to discuss and either agree or disagree. I feel Mr Abhisit did not do himself a service by not giving a drop-dead date (affirm or the offer drops dead at a certain date). A reasonable date might have been one or two weeks hence.

The carrot and the stick: the carrot is compromise, reconciliation, and candid addressing of the valid points that the red shirts brought up.

The stick is the IF - if they don't go along, meaning either continue negotiation or accept, then the big stick will come out.

I think Mr Abhisit has done a fine job of weathering the storms of criticism due to his **perceived** inaction. It will be interesting, again, to see how this all plays out.

The drop-dead date was announced earlier today. You have until Thursday or possibly Friday of this week, after the Coronation Day celebrations. We will disperse you at the end of the week.

From Terryfrd tweets:

Abhisit says he is proposing a way to reconciliation and asks everyone to take a role. There are five parts (for reconciliation to be successful).

1. Preservation of monarchy: keeping monarchy out of politics, create a proper understanding or role of monarchy.

2. In actuality, problems do not come from politics directly, but from inequities in society. Many protesters feel left out. A big problem. These problems need to be addressed through social security programs, education, debt, income enhancement, etc.

3. This is an era of communication. Freedom of information important, but with technology has also come misuse of media. Media must have freedom, but it must be responsible, must not deliberately distort or incite. Need to provide fair oversight.

4. There have been many violent incidents, causing greater divisions in society. Apr 10, Silom, Vipawadhi, Chulal Hospital, etc. All have caused psychological distress. All of these incidents must be investigated by independent agencies.

5. Directly related to politics and elections: The past 4 - 5 years have led to feelings of dissatisfaction in fairness of system. We need to work together to solve these problems, in terms of the constitution, right to assembly, basic problems leading to disunity.

This will not be successful without cooperation of all elements of society: parties, parliament, local organizations. If we can stabilize situation starting today, we can schedule an election for November 14

As for UDD, I have heard you. I have heard your demands, but I cannot accept a dissolution in 15 or 30 days. I believe this proposal is consistent with society based on law and principles of our democracy. Reconciliation must be based on compromise. This proposal is for all Thais. If UDD can't accept it, we'll keep moving forward, but I can specify a particular election date. PM ends by hoping that this Wednesday, Coronation Day, can be a day of genuine celebration.

I must say I am satisfied. When you compare the quote above along with The Nation tweets you get the full picture of what this speech was about. It is a humble and sincere effort to begin the peace process. He has hit all points and offered a worthy plan for reconciliation. Finally he has stepped up to the plate and become a PM. I was beginning to worry. Now it is up to the UDD and their followers. They will either accept the compromise or they won't.

The red shirt leaders haven't outright rejected the offer. This is a good sign. They seem to want a little time to ponder. Perhaps they need ask T.? Alternately there are quite a few hardcore protesters. They to need to be mollified if the reds do not accept this offer. Basically it sounds like Abhisit is saying the following:

(1) Let the budget pass parliament.

(2) Democrats get to choose the next military command structure after Anupong.

(3) Amnesty for terrorist charges is possible for some leaders, but maybe not for perpetrators. Someone needs to be prosecuted in order to satisfy PAD, royalists, and other anti-reds in society. There is always the black hole of the Thai judicial system for the cases pf certain leaders. Their cases can be extended indefinitely (same as for PAD).

(4) The anti-monarchy charges can die on the vine.

(5) The constitution needs to be amended before elections. Everyone can and should participate and have their say.

(6) Red shirt leaders need to play ball or we will be forced to disperse you, no matter the cost. This has gone on long enough. You know you are wrong. We know we were wrong. But the madness needs to stop.

Note: these are not the points of the reconciliation plan, but this is what I heard from the speech.

...immediately after the yellow leaders are brought to court and have their punishment for what they have done at the airports, govt house and fellow country men

That might happen after Thaksin is safely ensconced in gaol.

From Terryfrd tweets:

Abhisit says he is proposing a way to reconciliation and asks everyone to take a role. There are five parts (for reconciliation to be successful).

1. Preservation of monarchy: keeping monarchy out of politics, create a proper understanding or role of monarchy.

2. In actuality, problems do not come from politics directly, but from inequities in society. Many protesters feel left out. A big problem. These problems need to be addressed through social security programs, education, debt, income enhancement, etc.

3. This is an era of communication. Freedom of information important, but with technology has also come misuse of media. Media must have freedom, but it must be responsible, must not deliberately distort or incite. Need to provide fair oversight.

4. There have been many violent incidents, causing greater divisions in society. Apr 10, Silom, Vipawadhi, Chulal Hospital, etc. All have caused psychological distress. All of these incidents must be investigated by independent agencies.

5. Directly related to politics and elections: The past 4 - 5 years have led to feelings of dissatisfaction in fairness of system. We need to work together to solve these problems, in terms of the constitution, right to assembly, basic problems leading to disunity.

This will not be successful without cooperation of all elements of society: parties, parliament, local organizations. If we can stabilize situation starting today, we can schedule an election for November 14

As for UDD, I have heard you. I have heard your demands, but I cannot accept a dissolution in 15 or 30 days. I believe this proposal is consistent with society based on law and principles of our democracy. Reconciliation must be based on compromise. This proposal is for all Thais. If UDD can't accept it, we'll keep moving forward, but I can specify a particular election date. PM ends by hoping that this Wednesday, Coronation Day, can be a day of genuine celebration.

I must say I am satisfied. When you compare the quote above along with The Nation tweets you get the full picture of what this speech was about. It is a humble and sincere effort begin the peace process.

He has hit all points and offered a worthy plan for reconciliation. Finally he has stepped up to the plate and become a PM. I was beginning to worry. Now it is up to the UDD and their followers. They will either accept the compromise or they won't.

From post #119 "Come on with your one sided comments

Have you considered soldiers shooting at other soldiers ? Not the protesters per say , they dont have any military training anyway .

We are talking heart and minds of soldiers here ."

I have considered that as well as The Royal Thai Police, an oxymoron, may have sided against the solders and current government for obvious reasons. Is has all been said before, why repeat the obvious... As for the "protesters per say" you don't think were ever in the Armed forces or were ex police? Every male I do believe has to serve in "The Royal Thai Armed Forces," for a minimum of two years. So, there goes that theory. My wife went to Military School in Chon Buri for 5 years. She can shoot a gun I assure you. Many Thai's have guns, I've seen them. So, until there is video proof of who shot whom, it's all speculation. But I usually try to follow the law of the land and I do vote and write my representatives to change or disagree with some legislation... I don't take to the streets... There's my one sided comment!

Edit: spelling error

Well if you ask i would not go in the streets either , but some do and the right to protest within the law is ok in any democracy.

Anyway i guess we are beyond that now .

Yes it might very well be the police against the army , that happened long ago in Thailand .

Well yes some civilians have fire arms i suppose , not as bad as the Philippines though , but honestly i dont see this as the pattern

of violence here . more like what you said police or army versus army .

I don't see it. The police won't go up against the army. They don't have the cajones for it. Yes, there is a long-standing rivalry between the police and army, but as it stands the police don't dare mess with them. It would be a slaughter. Pistols are no match for tanks.

Here's an example. My brother in law is a conscript in the army. When he comes here on leave he can ride a motorcycle with no license and no helmet throughout the streets of Bangkok. As long as he wears the army greens the police won't stop him. Not ever.

I took a look at the picture --- is that real military?

Kissdani --- you need a new line

Well, they have guns.

Here at this board have been the reports of shots or firecrackers and one member came up with his story of a shoot out and the shells he have seen. That was dismissed as unbelievable by the true believers who know everything better and don't mind the heavy censored access to information.

The pantip thread supports the eyewitness report at this board, but the thread is in Thai that limits the access to information once more, so people can still claim because they never heard of it or read something about and than it cannot be true.

You wouldn't be impressed by facts anyway or would you?

I would be impressed by facts. What is reported on a forum is hearsay. There is no corroboration. And as we all know there is a PR war going on.

For example. If I were to write a nice little story about a friend visiting an apartment in the occupied territory that was used as a weapons cache. And then I listed in detail about rocket launchers, machine guns, military rifles, grenade launchers, pipes, axes, IEDs, and other weapons numbering in the 1000s. Would you automatically believe me?

Well, markokang and his eyewitness report did sound plausible to me. He don't hide behind some anonymous account, if i look at his profile page i see a picture of him, he gives personal details and a link to his website. That all don't look like as he would make some stories up.

That has some substance unlike some other comments who cherry pick some lines from a twitter stream of some online partisan.

I understand what you are saying. I am not declaring that markokang is lying or making up a story. I just suggest that it is a possibility given the levels of misinformation that are coming from both sides. Everything gets weighed accordingly. And it's a fact that people will tend to accept flimsy evidence that supports their already held beliefs. Not just you or me, but anyone really. Some more than others.

I took a look at the picture --- is that real military?

Kissdani --- you need a new line

Well, they have guns.

Here at this board have been the reports of shots or firecrackers and one member came up with his story of a shoot out and the shells he have seen. That was dismissed as unbelievable by the true believers who know everything better and don't mind the heavy censored access to information.

The pantip thread supports the eyewitness report at this board, but the thread is in Thai that limits the access to information once more, so people can still claim because they never heard of it or read something about and than it cannot be true.

You wouldn't be impressed by facts anyway or would you?

I would be impressed by facts. What is reported on a forum is hearsay. There is no corroboration. And as we all know there is a PR war going on.

For example. If I were to write a nice little story about a friend visiting an apartment in the occupied territory that was used as a weapons cache. And then I listed in detail about rocket launchers, machine guns, military rifles, grenade launchers, pipes, axes, IEDs, and other weapons numbering in the 1000s. Would you automatically believe me?

That's hilarious. Nice one.

When the time comes the army will probably drive tanks and APCs right through the barricades. PM sounds like elections will be in about 6 months. Reds really can't be thinking that they will get them any sooner can they? It's not up to terrorists to name the timing of elections, that's the job of the PM. Reds have lost the PR war already, what's the point of losing an actual one?

Maybe your PR war, but they have won the international PR war, and won the argument.

Thailand is exposed internationally for what it is and always has been.Undemocratic and opressed by a bunch of establishment thugs.

Now people realise what has been hiding behind the smile, and they dont like it and won't accept it.

People internationally frown on invading hospitals and launching grenades at innocent bystanders. They've seen the payoffs, the intimidation and they've seen through the reds.

Invading hospital yes . wrong and very stupid

Throwing grenades however is not prooven else i think the governement would have

acted already .

Lets stick to what is prooven

It has been proven. They have captured several red shirt guards and a couple of red shirt leaders. They have confessions.

About the use of armored vehicles against a mob, you have to think before starting.... experience of controlling a mob with russian battle tanks (Hungary, Romania, then Yougoslavia....): they can be easily converted in barbecues with their crew inside.

You need some space for manoeuvering and think about loose shots on some buildings (Siam Paragon, President Hotel, Amarin plaza, Central, Platinum ....for example. Good contract for replacing all the Glasses: who is the contractor? I will take some shares in his business....

After thinking and turning your tongue into your mouth 7 times, maybe it is not a so good idea.....

I think they will move them so the reds can see them for a start.But I agree with you the reds thugs would not hesitate to boil their country men inside the vehicles. This is one of the differces between the army and the red mob. the reds don´t care about lives.

Obviously Ratjaprasong is not going to be so easy to take over and aftermaith....the Civil war in the whole Thailand... Is that you want guys?

I think there is zero chance for a widescale civil war. Certainly there will be terrorist acts. But we have that now. And we have had limited terrorist actions off and on for the last year. So no change there really.

Nobody knows ,they have changed colours remember,also people staying because there ID cards have been confiscated is a myth if they want to leave they can!

The worst course of action is to try and use force now it wil not end with that and continue all over the city and country,this supposed government keeps making one bad decision after another the only way forward was to go to the country and see where that takes Thailand,i am not saying it is the answer but it will stop the bloodshed that is about to flow now.

I say let the government lay out it's plan. Give the red shirts an opportunity to agree. Of course the leaders will have to turn themselves in to the authorities to face charges. However, if the red shirts refuse the government will have to disperse them. Responsibility for any injuries or deaths that occur during the dispersal will rest squarely on the red shirt leaders.

Still full of the same old, tired, clapped out, anti Taksin, anti-democracy garbage.

Taksins misdemeanors pale into insignificance when set against the crimes of the anti-democracy, forces of evil , in Thailand.

And we all know who they are, don't we

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a wild guess that you are referring to the armed insurrectionists who murdered soldiers and civilians, and have taken by force the city center of Bangkok.

dear Wy2muchcoffee Sorry, I have gotten some connection difficulties....

What we need to discuss now is the Budget which is going to be under the parliament fire next week from 1st october 2010 to 30st September 2011 with the Abhisit orientations, so we can check if it is true... (Education, Wealthfare....)

The budget Bureau last Budget is that one approved one year ago

Ok. I understand your drift now. Better transparency while the budget is being drafted with more public participation/debate/discussion in the drafting process. Makes sense to me. I don't know all that much about the process in Thailand honestly.

Hi Farang USA, this is Thailand not the USA.

In Thailand we have a separation of powers, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

So to close radio stations, that would be a decision by a civil court and not the government itself.

Just look up into the constitution.

But at the moment the separation of powers and the 'normal' laws itself are not intact anymore.

ISA and SoE are nothing more than a suspension of the constitution, putting the PM and CAPO/CRES above the law. Giving him the power of a dictator, acting without an independent judiciary.

With all that censorship action Abhisit clearly abusing his power to cling in power.

I wonder why the ISA and SoE were called. Could it have been a violent uprising of tens of thousands of people in the city center?

so its not an unconditonal offer of 6 months - according to Channel News Asia just now.

surprise surprise

Abhisit wants to change the Constitution before the election.

Does anyone know the full extent of these proposed changes and how they would impact the reds ?

Amendments were agreed upon by a multi-partisan committee several months ago. The committee was established as a reconciliation measure at the behest of the PTP. The PTP dropped out of the amendment process at the 11th hour after a video phone in by Thaksin stating his dissatisfaction. That would be a good starting point.

Here is a reference for free speech law in the US.

Essentially it states that any speech that will cause or incite 'imminent lawless action' is not protected, and that the government may censor any such speech.

Imminent lawless action is a term used in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to define the limits of constitutionally protected speech. The rule overturned the decision of the earlier Schenck v. United States (1919), which had established "clear and present danger" as the constitutional limit for speech. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2009[update], "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.

The Court upheld the statute on the ground that, without more, "advocating" violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927). But Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action